Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 11)
Search Results for: king james version
Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture
Mark Ward summarized almost all of his views on the issue of the preservation of scripture towards the end of his most recent video (here next is a transcript):
Stories?
King James Onlyists in my experience tend to tell themselves one of two neat and tidy stories: a Masoretic Text/TR story or a Ruckmanite story. The MT/TR story goes like this. Once upon a time God inspired the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament and He promised in Psalm 12 and Matthew 5 to preserve them perfectly down to the jot and tittle. Satan came along and produced counterfeits of the Greek New Testament, but thankfully the King James Version translators perfectly translated the perfect Hebrew and Greek texts once and for all. And it’s easy to spot the terrible Satanic corruptions in other Bibles.
When difficulties and inconsistencies are pointed out, however, in this MT/TR story, as I’ve done in this video, it tends to turn into the Ruckmanite story, which goes like this. Once upon a time God gave special blessings to the King James Translators so that all of their textual choices and all of their translation choices were perfect. If there are a few places in the King James that have no textual support in the Greek or the Hebrew manuscripts, that’s okay because God inspired the King James Translators to choose the right reading. If there are a few places in the King James Version where the translators actually followed readings taken from Erasmus that were translated from the Vulgate, that’s okay because God inspired the King James translators to recover the right reading.
The Ward Viewpoint
Now I told the pastor who sent me some of these examples that I don’t enjoy having to point out these difficulties and complexities. But let me build another bridge of trust, the one that I myself use all the time in my Bible study travels. Who gave us the situation in which we have incredible well preserved copies of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament, but there are numerous minor uncertainties and difficulties? Who gave us a world in which perfect translation between languages is impossible?
Who inspired the New Testament apostles to quote a Greek translation of the Old Testament rather than make new and doubtless perfect translations of the Hebrew? (And by the way I draw that last question directly from the King James Translators and their preface.) Who chose not to give us inspired translators, yeah, even a pope to give the best translation in each language his official imprimatur, the seal of divine approval?
Who gave us a Bible that comes in two very different languages, Hebrew and Greek, and actually Aramaic, three, and would therefore require translation in the first place? Who gave us a Bible over the course of 1500 years instead of all at once? Who chose to commit His precious Word to fragile papyrus and sheepskin?
Who gave us the excellent but not perfect situation we’re in? But who told us that one day the perfect would come that we would know even as also we are known? I think you know the answer to my not so rhetorical questions. God did all of these things, and He is good. He is my refuge even when I don’t understand His choices.
Overall Observations and Criticisms of Ward’s Statements
Ward’s little speech makes it easier to deal with what he thinks and says. First, I have some overall observations or criticisms. One, Ward caricatures and misrepresents especially the MT/TR position, and even gets wrong how Ruckmanism arose. He’s not telling the truth. Why do his followers give him a pass on this?
Two, Ward lumps the MT/TR people together with the Ruckmanites. I don’t know if he thinks this, or just conveniently tells it as a story. Either way, it is false. The MT/TR position arises from scripture like he says (albeit in a mocking way), but it also mirrors historic Christian doctrine as seen in creeds, confessions, and many other writings. His view did not exist among professing believers until the 19th century. This has been established, but Mark Ward and others like him just ignore it for a lie of a story. I will return to this point later.
Three, do consider that Mark Ward uses the word “story” to describe MT/TR people. Ward knows what words mean and he knows that the popular usage of “story” today is fiction. Notice then when he starts talking about his view, he calls it a “bridge of trust” and a “situation.” He doesn’t call that another story, a third story as the first two are stories.
Ward on Truth Serum
It seems to me that Ward has “lost it.” His primary target essentially rejects what he says, and he’s lost it, perhaps because of that. And then because he’s lost it, he did something I have not seen him do. I’m not saying he’s never done it, but I’ve never seen it myself. Mark Ward takes truth serum. He plainly states his viewpoint as I’ve never heard him. Ward acknowledges a lack of perfection of the Bible, based not on scriptural doctrine but on his experience. His stark confession reminds me of two examples.
In the last year, I saw a clip of Bill Maher in which he says that all pro-choice people know abortion is murder. He said he knows abortion is murder and he is fine with that. Maher’s two guest sat with jaws dropping at the sheer admission. In one sense, I can respect Maher because at least he tells the truth about his position on abortion. Another popular figure, Bernie Sanders, just comes out and in an obvious way supports socialism. He states his leftist positions without hiding them. Mark Ward does the same in this latest video like no other time.
I think it is important that someone hear what Ward says and understands what’s wrong with it. This is a teaching moment for a true bibliology. Ward admits what a big chunk of his side thinks. It is akin to neo-orthodoxy, not a biblical position. When Bart Ehrman came to this realization, it turned him apostate, which is a danger. I’m going to go through the above paragraphs by Ward and give a scriptural, truthful analysis to it. He’s wrong in so many ways.
First, what’s wrong with Ward’s MT/TR story?
“Neat and Tidy”
Mark Ward mocks the idea of a “neat and tidy” position. Don’t miss that. He would have his audience believe that the truth is not so neat and tidy. To him this is worth mocking with his articulation. The neatness and tidiness of the MT/TR position is that, one, God said He would preserve every Word He inspired and, two, He did it. That is neat and tidy. Modern version onlyists, critical text supporters are in a never-ending quest to improve the text of scripture. God didn’t preserve it perfectly — it’s really disorderly and messy. If you won’t embrace that, Ward will mock you for it.
“Tells Themselves”
Ward says that MT/TR people tell themselves a story. It’s as if they are repeating this story as a mantra, abracadabra and suddenly it will be true, because they keep telling it to themselves. It’s like spinning a talisman in one’s pocket or a lucky rabbit’s foot. “Just keep telling yourself.” He’s the nice guy regularly using this type of derogatory style. Yet, he won’t allow his opposition to comment on his constant youtube presentations on the subject. It gives the impression that everyone agrees. Just because someone tells himself something doesn’t make it true. When God says it, it is true.
“Once Upon a Time”
“Once upon a time” again is a reference to make believe or fantasy. It’s like opening up Cinderella as an actual book of history. He equates the truth with something that is a fable. Ward treats historical and scriptural doctrine like it is a fable.
It is difficult to separate some of what Mark Ward says from other of what he says. He bunches inspiration of scripture into his storybook mode. Is that a story too? I don’t think he means to do that, but it is the net result of this style of criticism he employs. Inspiration is supernatural. Our reason for believing inspiration is the inspired Bible itself. I believe Ward accepts this, but the attacks on inspiration from the neo-orthodox are the same as those on preservation. They question the veracity of inspiration based on so-called external evidence and reject the biblical teaching on inspiration.
Scriptural Presuppositions
Ward is correct that MT/TR folk presuppose perfect preservation based upon preservation passages in scripture. This wasn’t odd through Christian history and yet it is now, because of the attack on the doctrine mainly in the last thirty or so years. Ward is part of this attack. I’m using him here as a representative. He cherry picks two chapters for the simplicity of his storybook, Psalm 12 and Matthew 5. There are numbers of passages that teach preservation, as many or more than teach inspiration. This is presuppositionalism. We presuppose God fulfilled what He said. What’s wrong with that?
Is the teaching of preservation a story as in a storybook? True Christians have long believed it. The doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture comes from the Bible. I and others didn’t invent this. Many people in the pews of churches believe this too. They see it in the Bible and it is not buttressed only by Psalm 12 and Matthew 5. There are many others (some of which we exposed in our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them).
Ward himself recently started taking on scripture to support his doctrine of “edification requires intelligibility,” teaching it on a level unprecedented in the history of biblical doctrine. People like myself and others support his notion, even if we question his reliance on 1 Corinthians 14, a passage on using the known language of the congregation rather than gibberish. In other words, it’s a stretch to make so much of that principle due to even fifty to one hundred of his “false friends.”
Satan Counterfeiting
Next Ward says that MT/TR people assert that Satan took on the strategy of counterfeiting the MT/TR. Nope. Not true. Satan attacks scripture, yes. You see that in classic passages like Genesis 3 and Matthew 4. It’s also something seen in 2 Peter 3, where false teachers wrest the scripture. Also, Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2, that false teachers spread a false epistle with teaching contradictory to his, feigning as though it was from him.
MT/TR people like myself would agree that the attack by Satan starts by attacking the doctrine of preservation. Satan also wants people to be unsure, have doubt, about the perfection of scripture. This takes away from authority. Rather than a settled text, it is a disorderly and messy one that is uncertain. Mark Ward calls this confidence. It is a relative term, meaning something like 95% to 98%, what I like to say is less pure than tide detergent.
More to Come
How Can There Be Any Sin in Sincere? Mark Ward Strikes Again
Mark Ward made a video about me, and then SharperIron linked to it with my name. Is this a case of my living rent free in Mark’s head? I don’t know. I’m fine with his letting it go. He can’t do it though. Maybe I’m bringing him more audience. His numbers go up when he uses me in his presentations. They go way up. The terminology is “clickbait.”
In this edition of the Mark Ward show, he says that I helped prove his point about his “false friends” in the King James Version. He titles the episode: “Let a Leading KJV-Onlyist Teach You a False Friend!” Oh so clever, Mark Ward, the Snidley Whiplash of Multiple Version Onlyists. Yet, “Curses, foiled again!” Foiled again, because Dudley Do-Right of TR Onlyism is of course not in fact jumping on the Snidley false friend train track. What happened?
1 Peter 2:2
For many years, I have used and still use 1 Peter 2:2 as a major Christian worldview reference and helping understand the word “sincere.” Mark says “sincere” now is a bad translation in 1 Peter 2:2 and a “false friend.” I ask, “How can there be any sin in sincere?” Answer: By stretching the truth.
Mark dug deep into this blog to find a post and an exchange in the comment section as the highlight of his program. Here is 1 Peter 2:2:
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.
I’ve referred to “the sincere milk” many times as the “pure mother’s milk” (here, here, here, here, and here among other places). Ward says “sincere” is a false friend to a reader of the King James Version, because sincere means something different today than it did in 1611 (or 1769). Instead, he says (and says that I say) it means “pure.” He reports that I think it should mean pure too, but because I’m KJVO, I won’t admit that, even though I believe it. He’s saying I’m not sincere about sincere.
Sincere Milk
Welcome to the Snidley Whiplash mindreading class, SW101. I said that “sincere milk” is not common language for today. It isn’t. Almost nobody would know what that means without explanation. Perhaps people knew better in 1611. Still, I don’t think another translation today would be better than “sincere” in 1 Peter 2:2. “Pure milk” doesn’t get it done. It misses the point of that expression in the original language. I talk about the meaning in the comment section of the post to which Ward referred:
The mother’s milk goes to her baby without any other intervention, no human intervention, straight from mom to baby, unlike other milk. God changes us through revelation, not through our discoveries. With God and His Word there is no variableness or shadow of turning. His Word and God are not relative as is everything else. It comes direct and so undiluted or affected unlike our eyewitness or findings. We can’t trust these lying eyes or that there hasn’t been some kind of intervention in nature. This is why faith is superior to human discovery, because it depends on God.
The sincerity, the purity, is that it comes as one, which is the meaning of the Latin “sin,” one. There is oneness to the nature of God and to His revelation. It is entirely cohesive, non-contradictory, not mixed with any kind of error.
Mark Ward doesn’t include this part in his presentation. Why do I think “sincere” is still a good translation that needs no update in 1 Peter 2:2?
Pure or Sincere?
Play On Words
The Greek word translated “sincere” is adolos. The “a” portion of the Greek word means “no.” It’s called an alpha privative, expressing negation or absence. The previous verse, 1 Peter 2:1, uses dolos, the King James translators translated it guile. Guile could also mean deception. I believe there is a purposeful play on words by Peter between dolos and adolos, emphasizing the contrast between the speakings of men and the speakings of God. The speakings of men have dolos and the speakings of God have adolos.
Does adolos strictly mean “pure”? No. Sincerity conveys that someone speaks without deception, the error that enters into the speech or writing for a man-engendered reason. “Pure” doesn’t communicate that. In this sense, when the modern translators translate adolos as “pure,” that’s a false friend to those who read the word.
Meaning of Pure
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says in Matthew 5:8:
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Is “pure” here adolos? Is it without guile or not deceptive? No. This is the Greek word katharoi. An English word that comes from this is “katharsis.” This is what people think when they hear “pure” today. Yet, that’s not what Peter is saying in 1 Peter 2:2, that the Word of God is pure in that sense.
What I thought and wrote in the one post to which Mark Ward refers is that “sincere milk” is the “pure mother’s milk.” That is different than saying it is “pure milk.” He says that I wrote that “sincere” means “pure.” I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, which is why I believe Mark Ward left off the latter context of what I wrote and really focused on my reference to the Oxford English Dictionary. He isn’t sincere about my position ironically. That adulterates his commentary on what I wrote.
Christian Worldview
From a Christian worldview standpoint, God’s Word is revelation so it goes from God directly to the hearer like a breast-fed baby gets his milk directly from his mother. There is no intermediary. Evidence on the other hand involves, one, someone’s lying or deceived eyes, and, two, a context that is not neutral. I like to the say that the crime scene is contaminated.
When human beings look at evidence, they don’t see it clearly. God’s Word or will, therefore, can’t come through human discovery, but through the direct undiluted revelation of God. Revelation by nature is non-discoverable or else it wouldn’t be revelation. Revelation is “sincere milk.”
“Sincere” is still the best translation, but we also still have to explain it. If we translated adolos “pure,” that would more likely, I believe, lead someone astray on the meaning of the word, a false friend to the one reading it. I really do think this and Snidley Whiplash, someone who rejects the perfect preservation of scripture, misrepresents me on this. He’s a false friend to me.
Me a King James Onlyist?
I want to say one more thing about what Mark Ward does. He also deceives his audience by calling me a leading King James Onlyist. Calling someone King James Only, he knows is a pejorative. Mark Ward knows that double inspirationists (Ruckmanites) and English preservationists don’t see me as a leading King James Onlyist. Why? Based on the most fair understanding of that label, I’m not. Why not?
One,
I believe that translations should come from the original language texts, the Hebrew and Greek, not from the English. That means that I vouch for translations that are not the King James Version. Hence, I’m not King James Only. True King James Onlyists won’t do that and don’t believe that.
Two,
I do not reject an update of the King James Version. The only ones who do not know that are those who read misrepresentations from people like Mark Ward. I believe preservation is found in the original language text from which an update would come and did come in 1769 already. We do not use the 1611 today. An update already occurred. How could I be against that?
Three,
I don’t think an update of the King James Version is wrong, so I also think some words in the King James Version are archaic or out-of-use. I’ve said this again and again. It doesn’t mean I support an update. I have other reasons why I want to keep the King James Version. The main one is its underlying textual differences between the King James and modern versions, something Mark Ward says he won’t debate.
Four,
I say all the time that I think someone could make a different translation of certain words in the King James Version. Someone could translate the Hebrew and Greek words in a different way and they’d be right. The translation of the King James isn’t the only way or ways to translate the original language text. I know I would make different choices than the King James translators, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re wrong either.
A False Friend
When I study the Bible, I study the original languages. False friends don’t occur to me, because I’m studying the words in their original languages. I also know because of studying the original languages that translated words very often are false friends. Mark Ward exaggerates the importance of these words. He treats himself like he’s come upon something highly significant. He hasn’t. I don’t think his point about false friends means nothing, but there are greater concerns by far than these.
Mark Ward is a false friend about the King James Version. He poses like he really wants to help those who use it. I don’t see it. By far, he’s a greater danger because of the doubt he casts upon the BIble that people use. He relishes those who start using a contemporary translation that varies from the underlying text of the King James Version vastly more than the total number of false friends he reports.
“It’s Alive!” — The Modern Creation of a FrankenText
Mary Shelley and Frankenstein
Mary Shelley, born in 1797 in London, completed her novel, Frankenstein, in 1818. The lead character in her novel, Victor Frankenstein, succeeds at piecing together parts from dead corpses. He sews them together and brings them to life with electricity.
In the original novel by Shelley, the words, “It’s alive!”, don’t appear. They came into the public consciousness in the 1931 film adaptation of the novel. In the book, when Victor first animates his creature, he is horrified by its appearance and immediately flees from it. The scene is described with a sense of dread and regret rather than excitement or triumph.
Frankenstein was a fictional monster built from parts from various dead bodies. The pieces don’t fit because they come from all different bodies. In the same way, a Frankentext constructs a brand new text, using words plucked out from many different manuscripts.
Thomas Ross, Dwayne Greene, and the Frankentext
On a few different occasions, people used the term “Frankentext” to describe a brand new, diverse text from many varied sources. In recent days, I’ve heard a man, Dwayne Greene, use it in a podcast. He titled some of his episodes with the word. Greene refers to a practice that Thomas Ross earlier pointed out in his debate with James White about the modern critical text of the New Testament. The fifth of United Bible Society’s edition of the Greek New Testament, the same as the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, is a Frankentext.
I wrote in a post about Ross’s debate with White:
In his debate with White, Ross dismantled White’s position with evidence, point by point. White himself resorted to ad hominem style arguments by regularly pointing out how fast Ross talked and judged his motives. He never answered Ross’s primary argument against the underlying text of the LSB and other modern versions of the Bible. Ross showed plainly how that in hundreds of places, lines of underlying Greek text behind the LSB had zero manuscript evidence.
Talk about the Frankentext
I talk about this again in something else about the debate:
In every place the USB/NA has no extant manuscript support for its lines of readings (again, over 100), the TR has manuscript support. This should end White’s manuscript argument. Ross pointed this out in the debate in a very clear fashion. White would not recant of his position.
In a post to review the debate and explain how Ross won, I wrote:
White asserts no manuscript evidence for one NT reading, the one in Revelation 16:5. He says there is light evidence for one word in Ephesians 3:9 and the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7. Ross shows there is no manuscript evidence for at least 41 separate lines of text in the NA, evidenced by Swanson in his New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus. None of this occurs in the TR. Based on the ratio of Matthew and Mark text to the rest of the New Testament, that would result in 191 total for the NT.
A Further Description from Me
In another post, referring to this, I wrote to describe this:
The other side, the critical text and multiple modern version position, does not follow scriptural presuppositions. It proceeds from naturalistic and relativistic ones. This is especially seen in the hundreds of lines of Greek text for its New Testament with no manuscript evidence. Critics pieced together lines of text that never existed in any copy anywhere and anytime.
The above is what I (and others) mean by a FrankenText. Mark Ward in one of his recent podcasts interviews a friend of his getting his PhD in textual criticism, and he asks the man about this Frankentext problem, referring to Dwayne Greene. He uses the term with the man. In answer to the question, Ward’s friend says that all Greek New Testament texts are Frankentexts, including the Textus Receptus. This is an outright, utter falsehood. It isn’t true and it deceives or misleads people.
Lies Including the Textus Receptus As a Frankentext
The Textus Receptus does not contain hundreds of lines of text with absolutely zero manuscript evidence. Those lines in the critical text of the New Testament (the UBS and NA) have no manuscript support in any manuscript. That doesn’t occur with the received text of the New Testament, the basis of the King James Version. Manuscripts actually have those readings. There is minority support for certain words, but lines of text are found in manuscripts for the Textus Receptus.
A common line of argument today, people term, “Whataboutism?” It is defined:
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about….?”) is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.
Ward’s friend does this. Instead of dealing with the problem of these lines of text with no manuscript evidence, he uses whataboutism. In fact, even his whataboutism isn’t true, which sometimes is the case with this sort of argumentation.
CBGM
More Frankentexts are bound to arise because of a new method of modern textual criticism, given the shorthand CBGM. It’s going to sound impossibly technical, but it means, “Coherence Based Genealogical Method.” To try to put it simply, someone wrote this:
The computer application itself aggregates relationships between readings based on agreement with other readings as well as based on their disagreements. Basically, it compares Greek manuscripts, finds the similarities and differences, and then uses an algorithm to decide which is “probably” the right reading.
This same article said this about CBGM:
CBGM is a relatively new approach to textual criticism using a computer program in order to determine the validity of a reading (somewhere between 1997 and 2000). By “reading”, we are referring to anything from a single word of Scripture to a phrase, or even a more substantial section of the Scriptures. In this method, the computer becomes a tool in determining which readings are “most likely authentic”. Having said that, it should be noted that it still requires much interaction from the users.
Frankentexts will increase. Is that a concern? It looks like, not so much. That criticism that your line of text has zero manuscript evidence doesn’t matter as much as it once did. All of this sadly departs from a supernatural, divine presupposition about preservation of scripture, embracing instead a naturalistic, humanistic viewpoint about lost scripture in need of restoration.
John 5:4 KJV/TR: Inspired Scripture or Inserted Invention?
John 5:4 appears in the Greek Textus Receptus, the English King James Version or Authorized Version (KJV / KJB / AV), and in other Received Text – based Bibles. However, it is omitted in many modern Bible versions. The verse reads:
John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ· ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι.
The variant actually concerns John 5:3b-5:4. The section in bold is what is omitted:
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
3 ἐν ταύταις κατέκειτο πλῆθος πολὺ τῶν ἀσθενούντων, τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν, ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν. 4 ἄγγελος γὰρ κατὰ καιρὸν κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρᾳ, καὶ ἐτάρασσε τὸ ὕδωρ· ὁ οὖν πρῶτος ἐμβὰς μετὰ τὴν ταραχὴν τοῦ ὕδατος, ὑγιὴς ἐγίνετο, ᾧ δήποτε κατείχετο νοσήματι.
Should we receive John 5:4 (or rather, John 5:3b-5:4) as part of God’s holy Word? Yes, we should. Why?
1.) In God’s singular care and providence it has been included in the Textus Receptus, and received by the churches. Scripture promises maximal certainty about its own text.
2.) John 5:4 has great support in Greek manuscripts. It appears in 99.2% of all Greek manuscripts. The United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament, which is biased against the Textus Receptus, nevertheless lists as supporting witnesses in favor of John 5:4 the following: A C3 K L Xcomm Δ Θ Ψ 063 078 f1 f13 28 565 700 882 1009 1010 1071 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1253 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 Byz Lect ita,aur,b,c,e,ff2,j,r1 vgcl syrp,pal copbomss arm Diatessarona,earm,i,n Tertullian Ambrose Didymus Chrysostom Cyril.
Thus, for example, Tertullian explicitly comments on John 5:4 in his On Baptism (Tertullian, “On Baptism,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885], 671.) with no indication that anyone was questioning it. Undoubtedly, the testimony in favor of John 5:4 is both very extensive and very ancient. Its “appearance in an overwhelming number of surviving Greek manuscripts, its diffusion into the Latin and Syriac traditions (plus even some manuscripts of the Egyptian Bohairic version), along with its citation by fathers in both East and West … serve to underscore its age[.]” (Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5:4: Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (1979): 29.)
3.) John 5:7 does not make sense without John 5:4:
The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
If John 5:3b-5:4 is omitted from the Gospel of John, John 5:7 does not make any sense. What is the impotent man talking about?
4.) The Copper Scroll from Cave 3 at Qumran establishes that the spelling of the name as “Bethesda,” as found in the Textus Receptus and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, is correct, while the alternative spellings that are featured in the tiny minority of MSS that omit John 5:4 (Bethsaida; Belzetha; Bethzatha) are incorrect. If the witnesses for omission are clearly wrong here, while the Textus Receptus is right, we should not be surprised if the Received Text is also right in including the passage.
5.) The theology of the passage fits with the rest of Scripture, although some have unreasonably questioned it. How can John 5:4 accurately record real events? I do not see why we should think that, in that period of time before there was a completed canon of Scripture and when the Jews, who desire a sign, were God’s nation and institution in a pre-Christian dispensation, that He could not have at unspecified intervals (John 5:4 does not say how often this happened) have miraculously healed people who came to this location through the instrumentality of angels. If demons contribute to at least some sicknesses and disease, why should we be surprised if God’s angels are associated with health? The area was destroyed by the Romans in A. D. 70, and so this miraculous action would have ceased by that point (if not earlier with the inauguration of the church as God’s institution, or even with Christ’s actions in John 5). Such miraculous healing could have been a sign that God’s special presence remained with His nation and people, even in the times of the Gentiles. Indeed, we should see that God even designed the entire place to point forward to Christ and to the manifestation of His glory as seen in John 5, after which the miracles likely ceased to take place there. The fact that, in this age when sign miracles (semeion) do not occur (although God works powerfully [dunamis] in His providential care and in many other wonderful ways) this verse can seem odd, and (in this dispensation) we are rightly highly skeptical about miracle claims, could easily explain why someone wanted to take the passage out and why a small number of people who were fine “correcting” the Bible were able to get the verse out of less than 1% of Greek MSS. One writer comments:
[I]t must be said that the miraculous intervention of angels in human life is so well established in the Bible, and so variegated, that only those who are uncomfortable with supernaturalism itself are likely to be genuinely troubled by the content of the verses under consideration. Indeed it may even be proposed that the reference to the angel is functional for Johannine theology. Already the Fourth Evangelist has pointed to the subservience of angels to the person of Christ by citing the Lord’s memorable words to Nathaniel, “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” (1:51). But here too the angelic ministration at the pool of Bethesda is markedly inferior to the ministry of God’s Son. Indeed, the seasonal and limited character of the healings the angel performed—and which were of no avail to the invalid described in this passage—are an appropriate backdrop for the instantaneous deliverance which Jesus brought to a man who had virtually lost all hope (cf. v. 7) while he lay forlornly in a place where God’s mercy seemed always to touch others, but never himself. The concept that Messiah is greater than the angels—despite the reality of their divinely appointed activities—lies implicitly in the background of the Johannine text. That this was an important theme for early Christianity no one will doubt who has read the opening chapters of the Book of Hebrews. Its appearance here, therefore, is hardly surprising. (Zane C. Hodges, “The Angel at Bethesda—John 5:4: Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 [1979]: 38–39).
It is also unfortunate that anti-Received Text presuppositions lead to the exclusion of any consideration of John 5:4 in many modern books on the doctrine of angelology.
In conclusion, John 5:4 (John 5:3b-4) is part of God’s Word, just as inspired as the rest of the text. We should receive it with fear and trembling, reverence and love, as we do the rest of holy Scripture.
–TDR
New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 6)
ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five
1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3. God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4. God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
5. God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.
6. God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.
THE APPLICATION OF THE PRESUPPOSITIONS, PRINCIPLES, AND PROMISES OF AND FROM SCRIPTURE (Part Two)
In five parts of this series, I first declared the scriptural presuppositions, principles, and promises that buttress the historical and biblical position. Then I stated the positive conclusion of the provided model, paradigm, or template that followed the six truthful premises. The underlying original language text of the King James Version is, as Hills asserted, its own “independent variety of the Textus Receptus.” It is essentially Beza 1598, but not identical to that printed edition. This conclusion fulfills the model, the biblical premises.
The Other Side Does Not Follow Scriptural Presuppositions
The other side, the critical text and multiple modern version position, does not follow scriptural presuppositions. It proceeds from naturalistic and relativistic ones. This is especially seen in the hundreds of lines of Greek text for its New Testament with no manuscript evidence. Critics pieced together lines of text that never existed in any copy anywhere and anytime. On the other hand, they commonly still make the claim that the underlying text behind the King James comes from just a “handful of manuscripts available at the time.”
A very common attack, which I anticipate again on this series, will skip all the presuppositions, principles, and promises and go directly to and then quote the concluding statement out of context. It would sound something like this: “Kent Brandenburg says, The perfect preserved text of scripture is ‘the underlying original language text of the King James Version.'” I took that from the above first paragraph of this post.
The opposition then treats that statement like it stood alone with no explanation. The enemies of the scriptural and historical position will provide strawman arguments. They won’t be the actual ones in these posts, and if they provide any of them, they’ll misrepresent them. You can count on this. I take this bow shot or preemptive strike as a warning.
Scripture reveals presuppositions, principles, and promises about God’s preservation of scripture. I could faithlessly ignore those. Instead, I could focus on the existence of textual variants and the relatively few variations between the printed editions of the textus receptus. Also, I could obsess over a couple individual words that critics say have little manuscript evidence. Those challenge the presuppositions, principles, and promises. I consider those minor challenges outweighed again by the presuppositions, principles, and promises.
Faith and the Model of Canonicity
Two verses that mean a lot to me related to the perfect preservation of the Greek New Testament is Romans 4:20-21:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
The same type of challenge occurs with the belief in twenty-seven books. No verse says, “Twenty-seven books are in the New Testament,” just like no verse says that Noah’s ark is still on Mount Ararat. Do I have faith that Noah’s ark is up there? I believe it landed there and stayed.
Why the twenty-seven that we call the New Testament? Some disagree. Other opinions exist. The presuppositions, principles, and promises are the same for twenty-seven New Testament books. These were the ones the churches accepted, a testimony of the Holy Spirit through believers.
The Unacceptable Alternative
The alternative to this position I espouse here is unacceptable. It rejects these presuppositions, principles, and promises. Also, it leaves the church without verbal, plenary perfection of scripture. The position I take, as I see it and very strongly, is the best and really only position for a perfect scripture, what believers should expect. Because of that, I take it.
Through the years, I have considered the arguments for the other side. What I’ve seen is a regularly changing, morphing attack. It’s as though they just throw anything and everything, the proverbial kitchen sink. Their conclusion is the same: uncertainty, doubt, the denial of scriptural and historical teaching, loss of authority, an ever changing and mutating scriptural text, and the ultimate apostasy that goes along with what they consider reality.
Certainty Versus “Confidence”
You can hear professing evangelicals attempt to fortify against the problem they create. They can’t say “certainty,” and even mock “certainty.” I hope you have a hard time even imagining this. It does happen and is happening, but they ratchet down expectations with words like “confidence.” It’s not even scriptural confidence, just confidence falsely so-called. They create uncertainty and can’t be certain, so they adjust people’s mindset to a form of probability at a higher level of probability that they falsely label “confidence.” It should be sued for false advertising.
From where does this confidence come for professing evangelicals who embrace confidence rather than certainty? It comes from naturalism. Yes, naturalism. They think they can give a high level of proof from naturalism and rationalism. It’s like trying to convince people that the vaccination is safe. Yes, they rushed it out, but look, they’re even vaccinating the president. Evangelicals mock certainty in a nasty manner and then they focus on confidence.
Compare again confidence to a vaccination drive. Can you get confidence from something at 95 percent? We know God wants jot and tittle obedience. Jesus said that in Matthew 5:17-20. These evangelicals don’t offer jot and tittle certainty as the grounds for jot and tittle obedience. This is also why they accompany their confidence with scaled down obedience. Since their adherents can’t be sure of scripture, they emphasize non-essentials. No one should separate over eschatology, ecclesiology, and a mounting stack of teachings. Why? No one can or should ensure certainty. That’s not who we should roll with God’s Word.
What God Desires
The alternative to the truth also evinces the truth itself. The truth stands. Scripture teaches perfect preservation, availability, a settled text, and all the other of the six principles I listed in this series. These form the basis for a sure, certain text of scripture that results in the kind of obedience God proposes and desires.
Is what God desires extremism and dangerous? The side of uncertainty and doubt uses this kind of tactic, name-calling, labeling faith in scriptural teaching as extremist and dangerous. Don’t worry. That’s what they said about Jesus and the Apostles too.
I call on everyone reading to reject a critical, naturalistic text of scripture and the substandard probability, called “confidence,” that it engenders. Those pushing that view are part of the downward trajectory, the steady decline, seen everywhere today. They are part of what’s not getting better.
New List of Reasons for Maximum Certainty for the New Testament Text (Part 4)
ANSWERING AGAIN THE “WHAT TR?” QUESTION
1. God Inspired Specific, Exact Words, and All of Them.
2. After God Inspired, Inscripturated, or Gave His Words, All of Them, to His People through His Institutions, He Kept Preserving Each of Them and All of Them According to His Promises of Preservation.
3. God Promised Preservation of the Words in the Language They Were Written, or In Other Words, He Preserved Exactly What He Gave.
4. God’s Promise of Keeping and Preserving His Words Means the Availability of His Words to Every Generation of Believers.
5. God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Used the Church to Accredit or Confirm What Is Scripture and What Is Not.
Introduction to Point 6.
I hear many, what I would call, dishonest arguments. Those occur all the time from proponents of the critical text or multiple modern versions. Let me give you a couple, three, but with my focus on one in particular. One of these is the usage of the KJV translators for support of the critical text and modern versions. I agree the translators made room for improvements to their translation. They didn’t see the translation as the end of improvement in translation. They weren’t talking about improvements on the underlying text. That’s either incompetent or dishonest as an argument.
How can I be the dummy version of KJVO if I agree with the translators on the issue of improvement? I can’t be, yet this is what critical text or modern version people do all the time. Their posing as non-confrontational and with a cheery Christian spirit is nothing more than a ruse. They will treat you well if you budge to a significant degree toward their positions. That’s all. If you don’t, you get sent down the garbage disposal.
Pavlovian
There’s something Pavlovian to these modern version advocates. Young fundamentalists so want their favor, that they salivate to their positive reinforcement. This corresponds to turning on the light. The favor acts as a lure to behavior adjustment. Favored treatment is not an argument, yet is is the most convincing one in a feeling oriented world.
Can someone say the King James Version is inspired and support the 1769 update? I ask Ruckmanites this question all the time. Modern version advocates won’t acquiesce because they want to keep this second faux argument alive. If I approve a 1769 update, why would I not approve another one? Not doing an update is not the same as not approving of one. I’ve said often recently that King James Version advocates won’t update the King James Version under the pressure of modern version adherents, who don’t even use the King James. This really should be the end of this, but it won’t.
Latin Vulgate or Church Hierarchy Attack
The third bad argument from modern version proponents, the one on which I focus, has several layers. They say the King James is the Latin Vulgate to KJVO like the Latin Vulgate was to Catholics. This is to smear KJVO with Roman Catholicism. One of the layers is that it puts Roman Catholic-like power to the textual choices, putting the church over scripture. This is a category error.
Scripture, the authority, teaches that the Holy Spirit uses the church as the Urim and Thummim. God directs God’s people to the books and the words of the scripture using the church. The church is not taking preeminence over scripture by obeying scripture.
These false arguments remind me of the flailing of a losing boxer at the end of a match. Or, a basketball coach clearing the bench at the end of the game and the substitutes treating the final three minutes like they’ve won the game. No, they’re losing. These are not landing a single blow. They are what experts call “garbage time.” It’s just stat padding and not contributing toward winning at all.
6. God Declares a Settled Text of Scripture in His Word.
Settled Word
Scripture is not amoebic. Its boundaries don’t shapeshift like the Stingray nebula. The Bible doesn’t ooze and alter like the Hagfish. God declares in His Word a settled text of scripture. The Bible is a rock, not shifting sand.
God describes His Word as forever settled (Psalm 119:8-9). Deuteronomy 4:2 says:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30:6 instructs: “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” At its very end, the Bible says in Revelation 22:18-19:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
One cannot take away or add a word to a text that isn’t settled. No possibility of guilt could come to a person for adding or taking away from something unsettled. These warnings assume the establishment of the words. All the principles, presuppositions, and promises from scripture relate to the settlement of the text of the New Testament.
Considering the Nature of God
What God says in scripture about scripture should make sense, considering the nature of God. In Malachi 3:6, God says: “For I am the LORD, I change not.” The immutability of God, one of His attributes, provides a basis for trusting Him. God communicates the trustworthy nature of His Words with relations to His preservation of them in Isaiah 59:21:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Isaiah 40:8 says something similar: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
Received Text Mindset
Modern version and critical text advocates know that printed editions of the received text of the New Testament in the 16th and 17th centuries have few and minor variations. When I say “few and minor,” I’m not making a point that those variants do not matter. They do. The attitude at the time sounded like what Richard Capel wrote:
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concernes onely the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt. . . .
As God committed the Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jewes, and did and doth move their hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
The variation did not yield an unsettled nature. No, “what mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.” They knew errors could come into a hand copy or even a printed edition. However, that did not preclude the doctrine of preservation and a settled text. God would have us live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
More to Come
Reformed Systematic Theology v. 1, Joel Beeke & Paul Smalley
I recently finished reading Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019). I had purchased it on Logos Bible Software and, because I thought it had lots of good features, also purchased a physical copy with Reformation Heritage Books (which may be cheaper than getting it on Amazon, which I linked to above with an affiliate link. They currently have the entire four volume set at a heavily discounted price. I have not read volumes 2-4 (yet!) so I cannot comment on their quality.) I read almost all of the 1158 pages of the book on my phone in small snippets of time, such as when going up and down in an elevator, or standing in a line, and so on. I am about 60 pages into volume two, reading it in the same way. Let me commend to you being purposeful with the time God gives you; there are many time-suckers on a typical cell phone and on the Internet, but you can choose to avoid them and do something useful when you have a minute or two or five here and there.)
Positive features of Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).
There are many positive features of volume one of Reformed Systematic Theology. These include:
1.) The book consistently seeks to make doctrine practical. While it seeks–and achieves–theological precision, it consistently applies doctrine to life. The book does not just seek to increase one’s mental comprehension of Biblical teaching, but seeks to be the instrument of the Holy Spirit in applying the truth of Scripture to transform the whole man. As Dr. Beeke is the president of the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, we should not be surprised that, as an heir of the Puritans, he seeks to apply doctrine practically to life. The authors explain their purpose in writing as follows:
This systematic theology explores the classic teachings of the Reformed Christian faith from a perspective that is biblical, doctrinal, experiential, and practical. Today’s churches need theology that engages the head, heart, and hands. Too often, we have compartmentalized these aspects of life (as if we could cut ourselves into pieces). The result has been academics for the sake of academics, spiritual experience without roots deep in God’s Word, and superficial pragmatism that chases after the will-o’-the-wisp of short-term results. The church has suffered from this fragmented approach to the Christian faith. However, we have learned from the Reformers, the British Puritans, and the Dutch Further Reformation divines an approach to Christianity that combines thoughtful exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, rich exploration of classic Augustinian and Reformed theology, an experiential tone that brings truth into the heart, and practical applications for life.
Joel R. Beeke, “Preface,” in Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 17–18.
This practical emphasis is commendable, and it makes the book an edifying read.
2.) Reformed Systematic Theology is consistently conservative, evangelical, and Reformed in its theology. While Scripture does not teach Calvinist soteriology, if one is aware of the standard imbalances in Reformed doctrine, there is not much else in terms of “bones” to spit out while one eats the meat. There are no unexpected strange doctrines, but a solid presentation of the doctrines of revelation and of the infallible, inerrant Bible and of the God of Scripture, with the only things that are off being the standard errors of Reformed theology (in terms of theology proper, getting too close to making God the author of sin by saying that He decrees sin and justifying the horrifying Calvinist doctrine of reprobation). While I would not just hand this book to a new Christian and tell him to believe everything it says, I would not be concerned about giving it to someone training for the ministry who knows the problems with Reformed doctrine and is inoculated against them from Scripture. I believe people in the latter class could be greatly blessed by much good Biblical explanation and practical application in this book.
3.) Reformed Systematic Theology uses the King James Version as its base Bible version. I believe that Dr. Beeke preaches from the KJV, so this is not surprising, but it is still refreshing to not have to read lots of quotations from inferior modern Bible versions. On occasion the ESV is quoted, but the large majority of the time it is the KJV, which is a blessing for King James Only Christians.
4.) Interestingly, Paul Smalley is a Reformed Baptist, while Joel Beeke is a Reformed paedobaptist. I cannot agree with the paedobaptism, but I am thankful that at least one of the two authors is a minister in a Baptist church, even if it is a Reformed Baptist congregation.
5.) When it is appropriate Beeke and Smalley make warnings such as: “Worldliness diminishes a man’s soul and makes him petty; knowing God ennobles a human being.” (Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019], 509). It is great to read a systematic theology that warns against worldliness and points one, instead, to knowing God as the cure for it!
6.) The book discusses doctrines, such as Divine simplicity, that I am afraid that graduates from many Baptist Bible colleges and institutes will give you a blank stare if you ask about them. (Do you know what Scripture teaches about Divine simplicity? If not, maybe you should read the part of Reformed Systematic Theology about that doctrine and find out what it is.)
7.) My physical copy of Reformed Systematic Theology is a quality hardcover book that is well-made and easy to read. It is also written in well-written and engaging English. It is scholarly and excellently done.
Concerns with Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology vol. 1: Revelation and God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).
1.) My major concern is, naturally, that the Bible does not teach unconditional election and reprobation, limited atonement, or irresistible grace in salvation (and, depending on how one defines things, total depravity and the perseverance of the saints could also have problems). Reformed Systematic Theology is unabashedly Reformed. One who has not already read independent Baptist systematic theological works such as Robert Sargent’s Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine from Bible Baptist Church Publications would be well-advised to start there before reading a Reformed systematic theology, even one that has the commendable features mentioned above.
2.) While I am thankful that Reformed Systematic Theology uses the Authorized, King James Version, it does not have a section on the preservation of Scripture. The book’s outline on the doctrine of revelation is at the bottom of this blog post (please see down there).
You can see that there is a lot of good stuff in there. However, there is nothing either supporting or denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. One who recognizes that he has all of God’s Words in the Old and New Testament Textus Receptus will not have his faith attacked, but neither will he have it confirmed.
3.) I also do not want people who read this book and are encouraged by its good English, its many edifying and encouraging practical applications, and its solid theology in many areas to become improperly enamored with Reformed paedobaptist theology. I do not doubt that Dr. Beeke is a sincere and converted man whom I expect to see in heaven, but the special presence of Christ is not in his Reformed paedobaptist organization. If you can explain and defend why Reformed soteriology is wrong and why, in the doctrine of God, Scripture does not teach that God ordains sin or unconditionally reprobates people for His glory (!!), you may get many blessings from this book. Maybe you will even find it engaging enough to read the whole thing on your phone while waiting in lines and going up and down in elevators and the like.
–TDR
Here is the outline of the section on the doctrine of revelation. I did not take the time to re-introduce all the tabination, so please pardon the fact that everything is just in a straight line.
X. Theological Fundamentals of Divine Revelation
A. Biblical Terminology of Divine Revelation
1. Old Testament Terminology
2. New Testament Terminology
B. Basic Biblical Perspective on Divine Revelation (Genesis 1–3; Psalm 19)
1. The Revelation of the Sovereign God to His Image Bearers
2. The Revelation of God by His Creation (General Revelation)
3. The Revelation of God by His Word (Special Revelation)
4. The Response of God’s Servants to His Word (Applied Revelation)
C. Summary Statement on the Biblical Doctrine of Divine Revelation
X. General Revelation
A. General Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. Revelation around Man in Creation
a. General Revelation of the Divine Nature
i. It Reveals God to a Limited Degree
ii. It Reveals God in an Open and Plain Manner
iii. It Reveals God according to His Will
iv. It Reveals the Invisible God
v. It Reveals God’s Divine Nature
vi. It Reveals God throughout History
vii. It Reveals God through His Created World
b. General Revelation of Divine Wrath in a Fallen World
2. Revelation within Man
a. General Revelation according to the Image of God
b. General Revelation via the Human Conscience
3. The Use and Efficacy of General Revelation
a. The Universal Knowledge Granted through General Revelation
i. God Exists, and Created All Things
ii. Atheism Is Folly
iii. God Has a Unique Nature as God
iv. Idolatry Is Wicked
v. God Holds Man Accountable to His Moral Law
vi. Sinners Are under God’s Wrath and without Excuse
b. The Universal Response of Mankind to General Revelation
c. The Proper Christian Use of General Revelation
i. The Church’s Missiological Use of General Revelation
ii. The Church’s Doxological Use of General Revelation
B. General Revelation: Philosophy and Science
1. Christianity and Rational Philosophy
a. Not Necessary in Order to Know and Glorify God
b. Teaches Some Valid and Useful Truths
c. Proposes Systems of Thought Antithetical to the Gospel
d. May Be Used Only with Radical, Biblical Critique
e. Recognizes Legitimate Methods of Reasoning
2. Christianity and Empirical Science
a. Operates with Delegated Authority
b. Can Investigate Nature with Confident Rationality
c. Must Work from a Posture of Intellectual Humility
d. Must Realize That Its Conclusions Possess Only Human Certainty
e. Should Pursue Knowledge with Prayerful Dependency
f. Limited by Its Ultimate Insufficiency to Make Us Wise
g. Must Work with God-Fearing Integrity
h. Should Make Use of Its Findings to Promote Grateful Doxology
C. General Revelation: Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
1. Various Rejections of Natural Theology and Theistic Arguments
a. Karl Barth
b. Cornelius Van Til
2. Toward a Biblical, Reformed Approach to Theistic Arguments
a. God Testifies to Himself through the Natural World
b. Belief in God Is a Valid Presupposition of Human Thought
c. The Proper Posture of Human Reason Is to Fear God as His Servant
d. The Sinner’s Mind Is Alienated from God, and Cannot Reason to Its Creator
e. The Philosophy of Non-Christians Is Distorted by Satan
f. A Right Use of Reason Depends upon the Spirit-Illuminated Word
g. Christians May Make Rational Arguments from Creation to God
h. Christians May Use Arguments to Show the Foolishness of Those Who Deny God
i. The Wise Use of Theistic Arguments Varies with Culture and Education
j. Christians Should Beware of Glorying in Human Wisdom
k. Theistic Arguments Are Appeals to Divine Witness in Creation
l. Theistic Arguments Are at Best Like the Law That Convicts but Cannot Save
D. Some Historical Perspective on Natural Theology and Theistic Proofs
1. Ancient Roots of Natural Theology
a. Pagan Literature: Varro, Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno
b. Early Christian Apologists: Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian
c. Early Greek Fathers: Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and John of Damascus
d. Latin Christianity: Augustine
e. Assessment of Ancient and Early Christian Natural Theology
2. Medieval Development of Natural Theology
a. Muslim and Jewish Scholarship: Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides
b. Christian Medieval Scholasticism: Anselm and Thomas Aquinas
c. Assessment of Thomist Natural Theology
3. The Reformation’s Critical Interaction with Natural Theology
a. Critique of Natural Theology: Luther and Calvin
b. Critical Appropriation of Theistic Arguments: Vermigli, Junius, and Turretin
c. Assessment of Early Reformed Views of Natural Theology
XI. Special Revelation: Theological Introduction
A. Special Revelation: Biblical Teaching
1. The Trinitarian, Mediatorial Work of Special Revelation
a. The Son Is the Only Mediator of Divine Revelation
b. The Father Is the Sovereign Author of Divine Revelation in the Son
c. The Spirit Is the Effective Agent of Divine Revelation in the Son
2. The Finite Human Character of Special Revelation
3. The Manifold Historical Modes of Special Revelation
a. Supernatural Verbal Revelation
b. Supernatural Visual Revelation
c. Supernatural Providential Revelation
d. Supernatural Incarnational Revelation
4. The Personal, Propositional Content of Special Revelation
B. Errors Regarding Special Revelation
1. Special Revelation Extended to Hierarchical Tradition
2. Special Revelation Subordinated to Human Reason
3. Special Revelation Diffused to Harmonize All Religions
4. Special Revelation Redefined as Holy Encounter
5. Special Revelation Confined to Historical Events
XII. The Bible as the Word of God
A. The Word of the Prophets and Apostles Is the Word of God
1. The Word of God Preached through the Prophets and Apostles
2. The Written Word of God: The Old Testament
3. The Written Word of God: The New Testament
B. The Spirit’s Inspiration of the Written Word of God
1. The Reality of Verbal Inspiration
2. The Extent, Meaning, and Implications of Inspiration
a. Extent: Plenary Inspiration
b. Meaning: God-Breathed Word
c. Implications
i. Authority
ii. Veracity
iii. Sufficiency
iv. Clarity
v. Necessity
vi. Unity in Christ
vii. Efficacy
XIII. The Properties of the Written Word
A. The Authority of the Bible
1. The Source of the Bible’s Authority
2. Biblical Authority and the Church
3. The Authentication of the Bible
4. Biblical Authority versus Personal Autonomy
5. Practical Implications of Biblical Authority
B. The Clarity of the Bible
1. The Perspicuity Controversy
2. Practical Implications of Biblical Clarity
C. The Necessity of the Bible
1. The Necessity of the Gospel for All Mankind
2. The Publishing of the Gospel in Written Form
3. The Preservation of the Gospel to the End of the Age
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Necessity
D. The Unity of the Bible in Christ
1. The Great Theme of the Bible
2. The Manifold Forms of Christ’s Revelation
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Unity in Christ
E. The Efficacy of the Bible by the Spirit
1. The Word and the Spirit of Conviction
2. The Word and the Spirit of Life
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Efficacy by the Spirit
F. The Inerrant Veracity of the Bible
1. Inerrant Veracity Defined
2. Inerrant Veracity Clarified
3. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Inerrant Veracity
4. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Veracity
5. Objections to Inerrancy
a. Human Fallibility
b. History Is Not Essential to Religion
c. Contradictions with Modern History and Science
d. Contradictions in the Bible
e. Theological Novelty
H. The Sufficiency of the Bible
1. Biblical Sufficiency Defined
2. Biblical Sufficiency Clarified
2. Biblical Teaching on Scripture’s Sufficiency
3. Practical Implications of the Bible’s Sufficiency
XIV. The Cessation of Special Revelation
A. Arguments for Charismatic Continuationism
1. God’s Ancient Promise
2. The Eschatological Last Days
3. Cessation at Christ’s Second Coming
4. The Spirit’s Ministry to the Body
5. Edification of the Saints
6. God’s Command
7. Historical Movements
8. Personal Experiences
9. The Reality of the Supernatural
10. The Silence of Scripture
B. The Uniqueness of the Apostolic Age
1. The Apostles of Jesus Christ
2. A Biblical Pattern of Miraculous Ministry in History
3. Apostles in Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches Today
C. Practical Implications of the Apostles’ Ministry
1. We Must Receive the New Testament as the Word of God
2. We Should Distinguish between Modern Teachers and the Apostles of Jesus Christ
3. We Must Beware of False Apostles and Prophets Working Wonders
4. We Must Seek the Power of the Holy Spirit
D. The Cessation of Revelatory Gifts Such as Prophecy
1. The Finality of Christ
2. The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets
3. The Fallibility of Modern “Prophets”
E. Pastoral Concerns about Evangelical Prophecy
1. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Individual Leaders
2. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Presumptuous Beliefs
3. Continuationism Tends to Put People in Bondage to Human Thoughts, Impressions, and Feelings
XV. Applied Revelation for Practical Fruit
A. Personal Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Personal Faith in the Scriptures
2. Personal Study of the Scriptures
3. Personal Experience through the Scriptures
B. Familial Fruit of Applied Revelation
C. Ecclesiastical Fruit of Applied Revelation
1. Transformation in Corporate Life
2. Balance in Pastoral Ministry
3. Zeal in Evangelism
4. Dependency in Leadership
5. Priority in Education
6. Saturation in Worship
D. Societal Fruit of Applied Revelation
E. International Fruit of Applied Revelation
F. Doxological Fruit of Applied Revelation
Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 29–35.
Recent Comments